There's no chance at all 2PAC is getting $80M from the CFP in 2024/2025. Pure fantasy. You're in for a nasty surprise if you're making budgets assuming you will.

(11-04-2023 01:50 PM)clunk Wrote:  

(11-04-2023 11:38 AM)UofMstateU Wrote:  ...But in a few months, the leaving schools will no long be current members, and the 2 remaining members can decide how to distribute conference revenue however they like.

So, while there may not have been an exit fee, there could be an entire season of disbursements that essentially becomes an exit fee if the leaving schools cant come to some agreement prior to the date they leave. So it will be in the best interest of the leaving schools to come to some agreement, even if it seems favorable to Or St and Wash St, because they could lose everything when they actually leave the conference.

This is a really bad take imho. Withholding media money looks like straight up theft. It might even cross the line into criminal fraud charges against individual people. If there's even a chance 2PAC is thinking about this then the 10 absolutely should take them to court to stop it.

Media money is always held (not withheld, but held) by the conference until it is distributed, and it is distributed based upon the rules voted on by the conference.

They arent employees working for a salary. These are profit distributions to members. And the issue the leaving teams have is that they arent going to be members in a few months.

The teams that are leaving should have ensured that the distributions occur prior to them leaving and/or prior to them losing voting rights.

Its also one reason why I believe they will all quickly come to some agreement.

(11-04-2023 06:31 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  IMO, and yeah IANAL, Wazzo and Oregon State would have no grounds to try and deprive the D10 of their regular conference distribution this season. Those schools are earning that 2023-2024 distribution by complying with the terms of the media deal and competing in the conference. But, WS and OS may be desperate enough to try that, so IMO the D10 have to be on guard. IIRC, the PAC isn't like the B12, where there were bylaws saying if you announced you were leaving, you surrender the last two years of conference distributions as an exit fee. The PAC doesn't have that.

Beyond that, as a fan of a G5 school, I don't have much sympathy for WS or OS. The chart "Stugray2" posted above shows that these schools have been running on $80m to $90m athletic budgets. These days, that is barely above the top crust of the G5 level. WS and OS have been in a Power conference basically forever, and yet they never built up their brand value. That's why they got left behind. IMO they may have been complacent, assumed their P-status was a birthright, safe and secure forever.

I remember a decade ago, when USF was demoted from the quasi-Power Big East, we were chided by some for "wasting" our power years by not building up our brand and programs. Fair enough, but we were only in a Power league for 8 seasons. Not 80 and more like WS and OS.

WS and OS do not merit much sympathy IMO, and the rest of college football should not feel an obligation to accommodate them money-wise, IMO.

I wouldn't be so harsh, but I do basically agree with you in sentiment. Its not as bad as Temple when they got kicked out of the Big East, drawing 4,000 fans per game and not being able to beat anyone but Rutgers, but they haven't taken advantage of their position.
Comparison:
University # students 4 yr attendance state pop. revenues (from sticky)
Oregon St. 37,121 32,414 4.24 million $77 million
Washington St. 31,471 27,009 7.79 million $69 million
Utah 34,705 49,167 3.38 million $90 million
Oregon 23,202 52,756 4.24 million $103 million
Miss. St. 22,649 54,389 2.94 million $101 million

Similar and smaller schools in similar or smaller states have been much more successful with fan support and generating revenue.

Washington St. was last in the P5 (and had a big deficit) and Oregon St. was 3rd to last in revenues. Neither has been Vanderbilt in the revenue sports, but they haven't been especially successful.

(11-05-2023 09:29 AM)clunk Wrote:  There's no chance at all 2PAC is getting $80M from the CFP in 2024/2025. Pure fantasy. You're in for a nasty surprise if you're making budgets assuming you will.

I tend to agree. It's almost impossible to see the P4 schools, who in 2024 will be every 2023 P5 school (as well as SMU) excepting WSU and OSU, sacrificing 20% of the P5 money to two schools whose conference evaporated. It might well go to court, a battle over whether the Pac-12 is out of compliance with the CFP contract, being a non-performing partner. We shall see how this plays out (no way I'm guessing this outcome, far too many different settlements or not possible, for 2024 and maybe different for 2025).

(11-05-2023 09:08 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(11-04-2023 01:50 PM)clunk Wrote:  

(11-04-2023 11:38 AM)UofMstateU Wrote:  ...But in a few months, the leaving schools will no long be current members, and the 2 remaining members can decide how to distribute conference revenue however they like.

So, while there may not have been an exit fee, there could be an entire season of disbursements that essentially becomes an exit fee if the leaving schools cant come to some agreement prior to the date they leave. So it will be in the best interest of the leaving schools to come to some agreement, even if it seems favorable to Or St and Wash St, because they could lose everything when they actually leave the conference.

This is a really bad take imho. Withholding media money looks like straight up theft. It might even cross the line into criminal fraud charges against individual people. If there's even a chance 2PAC is thinking about this then the 10 absolutely should take them to court to stop it.

I agree with you. People go to jail all the time for doing things like this in business arrangements.

Well, WOSU can do nothing without complete control of the Pac. A mediated solution or some sort of court supervision with limited control and the best they can hope for is to keep the Conference alive. However, if the 10 departures are confirmed to have lost their vote in conference matters, what's to stop WOSU from changing the bylaws to allow them to spend some/most/all of the current year's income on rebuilding the conference? To be clear, I'm not advocating for anything illegal or immoral at all, I'm advocating for taking a muscular position in a move to keep their athletic departments solvent and relevant long term.

The only reason this is an issue at all is that Kliavkoff knows that he's getting fired the second the leftovers are in charge. If he'd followed the bylaws, he'd have handed the keys to WOSU and said "what do you guys want me to do?". He's not concerned about what happens to the Pac or the "150 Pac employees", he's concerned about what happens to 1.

I'm curious though, how do you guys think that altering conference bylaws with the express intent of supporting the remaining schools in the conference and rebuilding said conference is somehow a criminal offense?

(11-05-2023 01:26 PM)Stugray2 Wrote:  

(11-05-2023 09:29 AM)clunk Wrote:  There's no chance at all 2PAC is getting $80M from the CFP in 2024/2025. Pure fantasy. You're in for a nasty surprise if you're making budgets assuming you will.

I tend to agree. It's almost impossible to see the P4 schools, who in 2024 will be every 2023 P5 school (as well as SMU) excepting WSU and OSU, sacrificing 20% of the P5 money to two schools whose conference evaporated. It might well go to court, a battle over whether the Pac-12 is out of compliance with the CFP contract, being a non-performing partner. We shall see how this plays out (no way I'm guessing this outcome, far too many different settlements or not possible, for 2024 and maybe different for 2025).

I believe the PAC 2 will NOT receive CFP distributions while they are not in compliance (dont have the minimum required teams). They will have a couple of years to get back in compliance, and if they get back in compliance the following year, they would be entitled to distributions again under the current agreement.

(11-05-2023 01:26 PM)Stugray2 Wrote:  

(11-05-2023 09:29 AM)clunk Wrote:  There's no chance at all 2PAC is getting $80M from the CFP in 2024/2025. Pure fantasy. You're in for a nasty surprise if you're making budgets assuming you will.

I tend to agree. It's almost impossible to see the P4 schools, who in 2024 will be every 2023 P5 school (as well as SMU) excepting WSU and OSU, sacrificing 20% of the P5 money to two schools whose conference evaporated. It might well go to court, a battle over whether the Pac-12 is out of compliance with the CFP contract, being a non-performing partner. We shall see how this plays out (no way I'm guessing this outcome, far too many different settlements or not possible, for 2024 and maybe different for 2025).

What is there to fight about? Either the Pac has 2 teams and is thus not a Conference in the CFP's eyes next year, or they've rebuilt and are in fact a full Conference. If they're not a full Conference then they don't get a vote and the point is moot. They'd probably elect to give WOSU an equivalent share, maybe a ND-like share, for the final 2 years of the contract to avoid any sort of lawsuit, but it would be open and shut. But on the flip side, if the Pac HAS rebuilt for 2024 and it is in fact a functioning Conference, there is nothing in the CFP charter that allows 9 of the Conferences + ND to vote out the 10th. NOTHING can be changed without unanimity. We saw how difficult it was for the CFP to jump from 4 to 12 games, and it almost didn't happen. This isn't even a discussion, and I'm sure that it's the reason that Sankey and the rest have been so circumspect in their evaluation of the Pacopalypse. There was nothing in the CFP bylaws to deal with the disintegration/rebirth of a P5. Starting in 2026? I'm confident that everything that we've seen thus far will be dealt with in the next contract, and I'm also confident that we'll end up with something even more seismic that they didn't anticipate, again throwing everything into chaos.

(11-05-2023 02:04 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(11-05-2023 01:26 PM)Stugray2 Wrote:  

(11-05-2023 09:29 AM)clunk Wrote:  There's no chance at all 2PAC is getting $80M from the CFP in 2024/2025. Pure fantasy. You're in for a nasty surprise if you're making budgets assuming you will.

I tend to agree. It's almost impossible to see the P4 schools, who in 2024 will be every 2023 P5 school (as well as SMU) excepting WSU and OSU, sacrificing 20% of the P5 money to two schools whose conference evaporated. It might well go to court, a battle over whether the Pac-12 is out of compliance with the CFP contract, being a non-performing partner. We shall see how this plays out (no way I'm guessing this outcome, far too many different settlements or not possible, for 2024 and maybe different for 2025).

What is there to fight about? Either the Pac has 2 teams and is thus not a Conference in the CFP's eyes next year, or they've rebuilt and are in fact a full Conference. If they're not a full Conference then they don't get a vote and the point is moot. They'd probably elect to give WOSU an equivalent share, maybe a ND-like share, for the final 2 years of the contract to avoid any sort of lawsuit, but it would be open and shut. But on the flip side, if the Pac HAS rebuilt for 2024 and it is in fact a functioning Conference, there is nothing in the CFP charter that allows 9 of the Conferences + ND to vote out the 10th. NOTHING can be changed without unanimity. We saw how difficult it was for the CFP to jump from 4 to 12 games, and it almost didn't happen. This isn't even a discussion, and I'm sure that it's the reason that Sankey and the rest have been so circumspect in their evaluation of the Pacopalypse. There was nothing in the CFP bylaws to deal with the disintegration/rebirth of a P5. Starting in 2026? I'm confident that everything that we've seen thus far will be dealt with in the next contract, and I'm also confident that we'll end up with something even more seismic that they didn't anticipate, again throwing everything into chaos.

Didn't someone say that the definition of a power conference in the current CFP by-laws is based on bowl affiliations?

If that is true, then if the top bowls cut their affiliations with the Pac -- which they most certainly will for 2024 and beyond -- the Pac will no longer be defined as a power conference and its members will no longer be eligible for power conference level CFP distributions.

Nothing in the by-laws would have to be changed, and so the unanimity provision wouldn't come into play.

(11-05-2023 02:20 PM)HawaiiMongoose Wrote:  

(11-05-2023 02:04 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(11-05-2023 01:26 PM)Stugray2 Wrote:  

(11-05-2023 09:29 AM)clunk Wrote:  There's no chance at all 2PAC is getting $80M from the CFP in 2024/2025. Pure fantasy. You're in for a nasty surprise if you're making budgets assuming you will.

I tend to agree. It's almost impossible to see the P4 schools, who in 2024 will be every 2023 P5 school (as well as SMU) excepting WSU and OSU, sacrificing 20% of the P5 money to two schools whose conference evaporated. It might well go to court, a battle over whether the Pac-12 is out of compliance with the CFP contract, being a non-performing partner. We shall see how this plays out (no way I'm guessing this outcome, far too many different settlements or not possible, for 2024 and maybe different for 2025).

What is there to fight about? Either the Pac has 2 teams and is thus not a Conference in the CFP's eyes next year, or they've rebuilt and are in fact a full Conference. If they're not a full Conference then they don't get a vote and the point is moot. They'd probably elect to give WOSU an equivalent share, maybe a ND-like share, for the final 2 years of the contract to avoid any sort of lawsuit, but it would be open and shut. But on the flip side, if the Pac HAS rebuilt for 2024 and it is in fact a functioning Conference, there is nothing in the CFP charter that allows 9 of the Conferences + ND to vote out the 10th. NOTHING can be changed without unanimity. We saw how difficult it was for the CFP to jump from 4 to 12 games, and it almost didn't happen. This isn't even a discussion, and I'm sure that it's the reason that Sankey and the rest have been so circumspect in their evaluation of the Pacopalypse. There was nothing in the CFP bylaws to deal with the disintegration/rebirth of a P5. Starting in 2026? I'm confident that everything that we've seen thus far will be dealt with in the next contract, and I'm also confident that we'll end up with something even more seismic that they didn't anticipate, again throwing everything into chaos.

Didn't someone say that the definition of a power conference in the current CFP by-laws is based on bowl affiliations?

If that is true, then if the top bowls cut their affiliations with the Pac -- which they most certainly will for 2024 and beyond -- then the Pac will no longer be defined as a power conference and its members will no longer be eligible for power conference level CFP distributions.

Nothing in the by-laws would have to be changed, and so the unanimity provision wouldn't come into play.

I actually said that lol. I just looked up the Rose Bowl/Pac relationship and found nothing posted since the Pacopalypse about it. But, yes, that's the one way that the CFP would have of getting out of paying a Pac that was rebuilt in time for the 2024 season.

Hmmmm, check this out:

https://www.deseret.com/2023/8/8/2382481...t-byu-utah

There's an interesting McMurphy quote buried in there:

Each of the five bowls — Alamo, Las Vegas, Holiday, Sun and Los Angeles — have tie-ins with the beleaguered Pac-12 for the next three seasons, per McMurphy, but because the Pac-12 is set to lose two-thirds of its members in 2024, these bowls are able to revisit these tie-ins.

No mention of the Rose Bowl at all though. Surely they'd want a Big 12, SEC or ACC tie-in if possible in 24 and 25.

Ah, here we go. The Rose actually has no more agreement with either the Pac OR the B1G now:

https://www.actionnetwork.com/ncaaf/pac-...onferences

Ironically, the Rose Bowl — which has historically been a Pac-12 vs. Big Ten matchup — will not be impacted by the Pac-12’s defections. That’s because last year was the final traditional Pac-12 vs. Big Ten matchup, which featured Utah and Penn State.

What a mess.

Here's the actual CFP website, with a breakdown of what was paid last year and what will be paid this year:

https://collegefootballplayoff.com/sport...ution.aspx

The following is a breakdown of the CFP revenue distribution:

For the 2023-24 academic year:

Each conference will receive $300,000 for each of its schools when the school’s football team meets the NCAA’s APR for participation in a postseason football game. Each independent institution will also receive $300,000 when its football team meets that standard.

A conference will receive $6 million for each team that is selected for a Playoff Semifinal. There will be no additional distribution to conferences whose teams qualify for the national championship game. A conference will receive $4 million for each team that plays in a non-playoff bowl under the arrangement.

Each conference whose team participates in a Playoff Semifinal, Cotton, Fiesta, or Peach bowls, or in the national championship game, will receive $2.85 million to cover expenses for each game.

Based on calculations from the 2022-23 season, the following distributions were made in the spring of 2023 (Estimates for the 2023-24 season will be finalized following the 2024 CFP National Championship.):

Each of the 10 conferences received a base amount. For conferences that have contracts for their champions to participate in the Orange, Rose, or Sugar bowls, the base combined with the full academic performance pool was approximately $79.41 million for each conference. The five conferences that do not have contracts for their champions to participate in the Orange, Rose or Sugar bowls received approximately $102.77 million in aggregate (full academic pool plus base). The conferences distribute these funds as they choose. Notre Dame received a payment of $3.89 million by meeting the APR standard; the other six independents shared $1.89 million.

Certain conferences in the Football Championship Subdivision received approximately $3.08 million in aggregate.

Not quite as unambiguous as I thought. Clearly, there was some sort of carveout for the Rose, and there were a whole lot of discussions around the Rose Bowl last fall. Certainly there was no intention to leave both the Pac and B1G out of the $80m bonus pool, but there's no explanation of what things will look like in 2024 and 2025, or what the qualifying criteria will be and/or if it will change for 24/25.

How ironic would it be if the changes to the Rose Bowl agreement actually saved the 2Pac for the last 2 years of the current CFP contract?

(11-05-2023 01:56 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  <snip for page size>
I'm curious though, how do you guys think that altering conference bylaws with the express intent of supporting the remaining schools in the conference and rebuilding said conference is somehow a criminal offense?

IANAL, but yes in this case. Losing your vote doesn't mean you lose your rights. Minority stakeholders have legal protections. "Supporting the remaining schools" is just a nice way of saying "changing a contract without everyone's consent", which is definitely not allowed.
https://warren.law/blog/protecting-minor...hts-guide/

(11-05-2023 01:56 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(11-05-2023 09:08 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(11-04-2023 01:50 PM)clunk Wrote:  

(11-04-2023 11:38 AM)UofMstateU Wrote:  ...But in a few months, the leaving schools will no long be current members, and the 2 remaining members can decide how to distribute conference revenue however they like.

So, while there may not have been an exit fee, there could be an entire season of disbursements that essentially becomes an exit fee if the leaving schools cant come to some agreement prior to the date they leave. So it will be in the best interest of the leaving schools to come to some agreement, even if it seems favorable to Or St and Wash St, because they could lose everything when they actually leave the conference.

This is a really bad take imho. Withholding media money looks like straight up theft. It might even cross the line into criminal fraud charges against individual people. If there's even a chance 2PAC is thinking about this then the 10 absolutely should take them to court to stop it.

I agree with you. People go to jail all the time for doing things like this in business arrangements.

Well, WOSU can do nothing without complete control of the Pac. A mediated solution or some sort of court supervision with limited control and the best they can hope for is to keep the Conference alive. However, if the 10 departures are confirmed to have lost their vote in conference matters, what's to stop WOSU from changing the bylaws to allow them to spend some/most/all of the current year's income on rebuilding the conference? To be clear, I'm not advocating for anything illegal or immoral at all, I'm advocating for taking a muscular position in a move to keep their athletic departments solvent and relevant long term.

The only reason this is an issue at all is that Kliavkoff knows that he's getting fired the second the leftovers are in charge. If he'd followed the bylaws, he'd have handed the keys to WOSU and said "what do you guys want me to do?". He's not concerned about what happens to the Pac or the "150 Pac employees", he's concerned about what happens to 1.

I'm curious though, how do you guys think that altering conference bylaws with the express intent of supporting the remaining schools in the conference and rebuilding said conference is somehow a criminal offense?

Because its basically theft of joint funds. People with voting power can't randomly abuse the rights of non-voting or minority members.

(11-05-2023 09:48 AM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(11-04-2023 01:50 PM)clunk Wrote:  

(11-04-2023 11:38 AM)UofMstateU Wrote:  ...But in a few months, the leaving schools will no long be current members, and the 2 remaining members can decide how to distribute conference revenue however they like.

So, while there may not have been an exit fee, there could be an entire season of disbursements that essentially becomes an exit fee if the leaving schools cant come to some agreement prior to the date they leave. So it will be in the best interest of the leaving schools to come to some agreement, even if it seems favorable to Or St and Wash St, because they could lose everything when they actually leave the conference.

This is a really bad take imho. Withholding media money looks like straight up theft. It might even cross the line into criminal fraud charges against individual people. If there's even a chance 2PAC is thinking about this then the 10 absolutely should take them to court to stop it.

Media money is always held (not withheld, but held) by the conference until it is distributed, and it is distributed based upon the rules voted on by the conference.

They arent employees working for a salary. These are profit distributions to members. And the issue the leaving teams have is that they arent going to be members in a few months.

The teams that are leaving should have ensured that the distributions occur prior to them leaving and/or prior to them losing voting rights.

Its also one reason why I believe they will all quickly come to some agreement.

The last 6 in the PAC didn't know they were leaving until the last minute though.

(11-05-2023 03:02 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(11-05-2023 01:56 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(11-05-2023 09:08 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(11-04-2023 01:50 PM)clunk Wrote:  

(11-04-2023 11:38 AM)UofMstateU Wrote:  ...But in a few months, the leaving schools will no long be current members, and the 2 remaining members can decide how to distribute conference revenue however they like.

So, while there may not have been an exit fee, there could be an entire season of disbursements that essentially becomes an exit fee if the leaving schools cant come to some agreement prior to the date they leave. So it will be in the best interest of the leaving schools to come to some agreement, even if it seems favorable to Or St and Wash St, because they could lose everything when they actually leave the conference.

This is a really bad take imho. Withholding media money looks like straight up theft. It might even cross the line into criminal fraud charges against individual people. If there's even a chance 2PAC is thinking about this then the 10 absolutely should take them to court to stop it.

I agree with you. People go to jail all the time for doing things like this in business arrangements.

Well, WOSU can do nothing without complete control of the Pac. A mediated solution or some sort of court supervision with limited control and the best they can hope for is to keep the Conference alive. However, if the 10 departures are confirmed to have lost their vote in conference matters, what's to stop WOSU from changing the bylaws to allow them to spend some/most/all of the current year's income on rebuilding the conference? To be clear, I'm not advocating for anything illegal or immoral at all, I'm advocating for taking a muscular position in a move to keep their athletic departments solvent and relevant long term.

The only reason this is an issue at all is that Kliavkoff knows that he's getting fired the second the leftovers are in charge. If he'd followed the bylaws, he'd have handed the keys to WOSU and said "what do you guys want me to do?". He's not concerned about what happens to the Pac or the "150 Pac employees", he's concerned about what happens to 1.

I'm curious though, how do you guys think that altering conference bylaws with the express intent of supporting the remaining schools in the conference and rebuilding said conference is somehow a criminal offense?

Because its basically theft of joint funds. People with voting power can't randomly abuse the rights of non-voting or minority members.

That would be fought out in Civil court though, wouldn't it? The 10 departures would attempt to get an injunction preventing the 2Pac from taking "their" money. It would never be allowed to reach the point of potential theft b/c courts would already be involved from the get-go. Now, if the 10 departures didn't get an injunction, or if they did but the 2Pac took their money anyway? Ok, that might end up resulting in a criminal offense. But what you have been describing could, at worst, end up resulting in civil litigation.

Let's look at a hypothetical scenario. The 2Pac obtain full control of the Pac, and they change the bylaws, allowing them to forego any distributions at all for 2023-24. The 10 departures want their $37m, so they sue (probably in Washington or Oregon State court, but could be anywhere they think they have an advantage). The judge looks at the case, agrees to hear it, puts it on his docket, but doesn't issue an injunction. The 2Pac proceed with their plan, distribute no money for 2024, then they proceed to rebuild the Pac. Eventually, in 2025 or 2026, or whenever the judge gets around to it, he decides that the 10 departures did in fact have reasonable grounds for objection, and they're entitled to the entire $37m each, or $370m total. Has anything criminal happened here? The judge didn't issue an injunction, leading a reasonable person to believe that he did not expect to find for the plaintiffs. The departing schools are still gonna get their $370m (though 10% of that money would involve in-state transfers for WSU and OSU, and would likely be reduced or just waived outright by their legislatures). No harm, no foul as they say. But the nice thing is that WOSU had their nice parachute for a few years, they knew they might lose the court case, and they were able to make long-term plans to deal with the situation. WOSU still win, the 10 departures don't see their money right away but they eventually get it...again, no crime, not even a civil offense committed.

Now, we all know that it's far more likely that a judge would in fact issue an injunction and have an expedited hearing in such a situation, so the point is moot. Nobody is going to ignore a judge's lawful order in this situation.

(11-05-2023 03:25 PM)Miami (Oh) Yeah ! Wrote:  

(11-05-2023 09:48 AM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(11-04-2023 01:50 PM)clunk Wrote:  

(11-04-2023 11:38 AM)UofMstateU Wrote:  ...But in a few months, the leaving schools will no long be current members, and the 2 remaining members can decide how to distribute conference revenue however they like.

So, while there may not have been an exit fee, there could be an entire season of disbursements that essentially becomes an exit fee if the leaving schools cant come to some agreement prior to the date they leave. So it will be in the best interest of the leaving schools to come to some agreement, even if it seems favorable to Or St and Wash St, because they could lose everything when they actually leave the conference.

This is a really bad take imho. Withholding media money looks like straight up theft. It might even cross the line into criminal fraud charges against individual people. If there's even a chance 2PAC is thinking about this then the 10 absolutely should take them to court to stop it.

Media money is always held (not withheld, but held) by the conference until it is distributed, and it is distributed based upon the rules voted on by the conference.

They arent employees working for a salary. These are profit distributions to members. And the issue the leaving teams have is that they arent going to be members in a few months.

The teams that are leaving should have ensured that the distributions occur prior to them leaving and/or prior to them losing voting rights.

Its also one reason why I believe they will all quickly come to some agreement.

The last 6 in the PAC didn't know they were leaving until the last minute though.

6 of the 10 left within a few days of each other. Stanford and Cal knew they would leave.

(11-05-2023 03:25 PM)Miami (Oh) Yeah ! Wrote:  

(11-05-2023 09:48 AM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(11-04-2023 01:50 PM)clunk Wrote:  

(11-04-2023 11:38 AM)UofMstateU Wrote:  ...But in a few months, the leaving schools will no long be current members, and the 2 remaining members can decide how to distribute conference revenue however they like.

So, while there may not have been an exit fee, there could be an entire season of disbursements that essentially becomes an exit fee if the leaving schools cant come to some agreement prior to the date they leave. So it will be in the best interest of the leaving schools to come to some agreement, even if it seems favorable to Or St and Wash St, because they could lose everything when they actually leave the conference.

This is a really bad take imho. Withholding media money looks like straight up theft. It might even cross the line into criminal fraud charges against individual people. If there's even a chance 2PAC is thinking about this then the 10 absolutely should take them to court to stop it.

Media money is always held (not withheld, but held) by the conference until it is distributed, and it is distributed based upon the rules voted on by the conference.

They arent employees working for a salary. These are profit distributions to members. And the issue the leaving teams have is that they arent going to be members in a few months.

The teams that are leaving should have ensured that the distributions occur prior to them leaving and/or prior to them losing voting rights.

Its also one reason why I believe they will all quickly come to some agreement.

The last 6 in the PAC didn't know they were leaving until the last minute though.

This is not true at all. They waited many months for an acceptable media deal and it was never there. It was always being “negotiated” and Im sure the presidents had an idea it wasnt going to be a good deal. The ADs and presidents for these schools knew it was possible that they would have to leave due to the possibility of a subpar media deal. They had their backup plans. Im not sure when the 4C to Big 12 rumors started but they were there months and months before they actually jumped. They finally decided to move when it became clear that the best media deal was about 25m per year a school and all streaming. Colorado was the first to jump but it is obvious that nobody was signing on for that media deal. No one was staying behind.

https://kslsports.com/501143/opinion-unp...otiations/

(11-05-2023 06:19 PM)PicksUp Wrote:  

(11-05-2023 03:25 PM)Miami (Oh) Yeah ! Wrote:  

(11-05-2023 09:48 AM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(11-04-2023 01:50 PM)clunk Wrote:  

(11-04-2023 11:38 AM)UofMstateU Wrote:  ...But in a few months, the leaving schools will no long be current members, and the 2 remaining members can decide how to distribute conference revenue however they like.

So, while there may not have been an exit fee, there could be an entire season of disbursements that essentially becomes an exit fee if the leaving schools cant come to some agreement prior to the date they leave. So it will be in the best interest of the leaving schools to come to some agreement, even if it seems favorable to Or St and Wash St, because they could lose everything when they actually leave the conference.

This is a really bad take imho. Withholding media money looks like straight up theft. It might even cross the line into criminal fraud charges against individual people. If there's even a chance 2PAC is thinking about this then the 10 absolutely should take them to court to stop it.

Media money is always held (not withheld, but held) by the conference until it is distributed, and it is distributed based upon the rules voted on by the conference.

They arent employees working for a salary. These are profit distributions to members. And the issue the leaving teams have is that they arent going to be members in a few months.

The teams that are leaving should have ensured that the distributions occur prior to them leaving and/or prior to them losing voting rights.

Its also one reason why I believe they will all quickly come to some agreement.

The last 6 in the PAC didn't know they were leaving until the last minute though.

This is not true at all. They waited many months for an acceptable media deal and it was never there. It was always being “negotiated” and Im sure the presidents had an idea it wasnt going to be a good deal. The ADs and presidents for these schools knew it was possible that they would have to leave due to the possibility of a subpar media deal. They had their backup plans. Im not sure when the 4C to Big 12 rumors started but they were there months and months before they actually jumped. They finally decided to move when it became clear that the best media deal was about 25m per year a school and all streaming. Colorado was the first to jump but it is obvious that nobody was signing on for that media deal. No one was staying behind.

https://kslsports.com/501143/opinion-unp...otiations/

Their problem was that what they needed to do last fall was institute huge exit fees and immediately sign a long term GoR. They instead continued to trundle along with zero exit fees and no GoR post 23-24 school year. Alternatively, they could have passed a resolution that any/all schools exiting the conference would maintain full voting rights until Aug 1, 2024. It was the granddaddy of massive screwups.

(11-05-2023 06:28 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  Their problem was that what they needed to do last fall was institute huge exit fees and immediately sign a long term GoR. They instead continued to trundle along with zero exit fees and no GoR post 23-24 school year. Alternatively, they could have passed a resolution that any/all schools exiting the conference would maintain full voting rights until Aug 1, 2024. It was the granddaddy of massive screwups.

After passing on Texas, turning away Oklahoma/OSU, the B1G-PAC arrangement, doing this ridiculous media deal, failing to capitalize on the Big XII vulnerabilities post-UT/OU split announcements, and then further waffling on the media deal, they save the best one for last.

Is tomorrow, Tuesday no less, the day for the ruling?

(11-05-2023 06:19 PM)PicksUp Wrote:  

(11-05-2023 03:25 PM)Miami (Oh) Yeah ! Wrote:  

(11-05-2023 09:48 AM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(11-04-2023 01:50 PM)clunk Wrote:  

(11-04-2023 11:38 AM)UofMstateU Wrote:  ...But in a few months, the leaving schools will no long be current members, and the 2 remaining members can decide how to distribute conference revenue however they like.

So, while there may not have been an exit fee, there could be an entire season of disbursements that essentially becomes an exit fee if the leaving schools cant come to some agreement prior to the date they leave. So it will be in the best interest of the leaving schools to come to some agreement, even if it seems favorable to Or St and Wash St, because they could lose everything when they actually leave the conference.

This is a really bad take imho. Withholding media money looks like straight up theft. It might even cross the line into criminal fraud charges against individual people. If there's even a chance 2PAC is thinking about this then the 10 absolutely should take them to court to stop it.

Media money is always held (not withheld, but held) by the conference until it is distributed, and it is distributed based upon the rules voted on by the conference.

They arent employees working for a salary. These are profit distributions to members. And the issue the leaving teams have is that they arent going to be members in a few months.

The teams that are leaving should have ensured that the distributions occur prior to them leaving and/or prior to them losing voting rights.

Its also one reason why I believe they will all quickly come to some agreement.

The last 6 in the PAC didn't know they were leaving until the last minute though.

This is not true at all. They waited many months for an acceptable media deal and it was never there. It was always being “negotiated” and Im sure the presidents had an idea it wasnt going to be a good deal. The ADs and presidents for these schools knew it was possible that they would have to leave due to the possibility of a subpar media deal. They had their backup plans. Im not sure when the 4C to Big 12 rumors started but they were there months and months before they actually jumped. They finally decided to move when it became clear that the best media deal was about 25m per year a school and all streaming. Colorado was the first to jump but it is obvious that nobody was signing on for that media deal. No one was staying behind.

https://kslsports.com/501143/opinion-unp...otiations/

Yep, and there were those who kept denying the 4C schools were leaving the PAC-12 until it actually happened. *cough* DavidSt *cough*

(11-13-2023 10:16 PM)PlayBall! Wrote:  Is tomorrow, Tuesday no less, the day for the ruling?

There will be a hearing. Whether it will result in a ruling is another matter.